Environment Committee on Nov. 25th, 2024

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Some very interesting points have been brought up. I appreciate what Ms. Collins said about us being honest and truthful in what we're saying here.

I realize that sometimes statements are made here just for clips to appeal to certain constituent groups, but I do think calling out people with some of the names that have been used in this committee is inappropriate. It's unparliamentary. I think that the same standards should hold in committee as they do in the House. I am thinking of notions like “radical activists”. I realize that this is perhaps good politically for certain members to portray us that way, but I think the recommendations in Madame Pauzé's letter are very reasonable. Letters have been sent from committee before. In this case especially, given the need for more action more quickly, I think it's important we move forward on this.

I mentioned that motion 84 was introduced and there was maximum support from 20 MPs across parties. We know that climate-aligned financial regulation is going to help address the root causes of affordability. I know that we are all in alignment when we say that we want to take measures to help address affordability.

Right now, climate-related damages already increase the average Canadian household's cost of living by $700 a year. There are households that aren't able to get flood insurance right now and they bear the costs of that when tragedy strikes. More and more floods are happening.

For the increase in food costs, which all of us have been so concerned about and talk about often, we know that one of the major causes of that is climate events. If you ask any of the experts on this, they will say that climate policy and the price on pollution have had a very minimal impact on this while climate change has had a major impact.

For all of us who are concerned about the cost of living for our constituents and for all Canadians, we should all be wanting to expedite work to ensure that our financial sector is aligned with the real sector when we're talking about our climate goals.

On the question of whether this an emergency, I think the situation right now does qualify as an emergency. I would also mention that other things have been brought up in this committee that have been put forward as emergencies that I certainly would not consider emergencies. In fact we had a 106(4) meeting recently where we ended up doing committee business and coming up with a calendar of our meetings. That took four hours of time when we were all supposed to be in our ridings meeting with our constituents and talking to them about some of these very issues that we are working on in committee. That was not an emergency, yet that was put forward and probably cost taxpayers several hundred thousand dollars to bring everybody back, to get it set up and to have the House resources available. That's in addition to the filibustering that's been going on in the House.

I think that this kind of debate on a motion that Madame Pauzé is bringing forward is very important. The fact that we are debating whether or not a letter is appropriate, whether or not we should have a....

Excuse me, would you stop shouting at me while I'm speaking, please, Mr. Leslie? I didn't say anything when you were speaking.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Let's not have any heckling.

Colleagues, Ms. Taylor Roy has the floor.

Go ahead.

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you.

I sat and listened to Mr. Leslie across the way while he debated this very motion, and I would expect that the same respect be given to me. You can clip me later and misinterpret what I say all you want, Mr. Leslie, as is your wont, but I would hope that you would listen to what Ms. Collins said and try to be honest and truthful when you clip people and not put words in their mouths.

This is a very important issue. We have this forum coming up for two days. As my colleague Madame Chatel said, there are going to be thousands of people here in Ottawa for this. Canadians are concerned.

We were interrupted many times in this study that Madame Pauzé put forward, by Conservative motions and by other things that came up that they deemed to be more important when we had witnesses sitting here.

I don't think it's unreasonable to put forward a letter like this. We have a number of reasons. I mentioned affordability as one of them, but there are others.

We know right now that our financial institutions fund the main source of climate disruption. Again, words can be put in my mouth, but I think what we all are interested in here is bringing down pollution from the oil and gas sector, not ending it. We want to see a Canadian economy that's vibrant. We want to see power generated in a way that is sustainable, and we want to see a transition in Canada to those things. I don't think that means shutting down our energy sector; it just means transitioning. This is what we have to do. The rest of the world is moving in this direction.

I know sometimes it's hard for people to leave the past and look forward, especially when they're regressive, but there are ways of moving forward, transitioning and keeping our economy going. We've shown that over the last few years. We have to stop clinging to the past and hoping that the climate crisis will go away or that the rest of the world will ignore what we're doing in Canada and start taking action. Sending a letter now to the Minister of Environment is one way we can do that. Let's move forward. The rest of the recommendations will come.

I agree with everything that was said about our clerks. They do an excellent job. We can have that report done. It will supplement what's already been sent, and we can definitely incorporate much more of the witness testimony that we had. We had some great witnesses come forward. Some were perhaps dabblers or TikTok experts, but we also had some credible witnesses come forward who based their comments on science and fact. I think we need to look at those to see what else we can do.

Our competitive position is at risk right now. We're jeopardizing it by dragging our feet on major climate-related financial policies. For anybody who says that they're worried about our economy and moving forward, this should be of great concern.

We need to ensure that Canada is not left behind and that investors feel that they can continue to invest in Canada knowing that their money is going into projects, companies and funds that are transparent about what they are doing and are telling the truth. We need this. We need the regulation that will future-proof our economy.

I do feel, Madame Pauzé, that having a letter go out now followed by a full report that we can also debate is a good way to move forward on this. Once again, thank you for putting this forward.

I would just say that there are many reasons. When it comes to emergencies, I would say that the climate crisis is more of an emergency than scheduling meetings, so I'd hope that you would give it the same urgency that you did to other things.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

I have Madame Chatel.

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have a few small suggestions to make.

First, these recommendations are not necessarily binding on us when we write the final report. I just want to confirm that with Ms. Pauzé. I received these recommendations 45 minutes ago and I have been reading them carefully since then, but I have to say that sustainable finance is a pretty complex subject. I find these recommendations interesting and I think it is a good thing to put them forward at this stage.

In the second to last paragraph of Ms. Pauzé's motion, the two ministers are being asked to reply to us about these recommendations so we can know what they think of them. I would like to propose two things.

First, I would like to propose that they reply to us within 30 days, not 45 days.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Are you proposing an amendment?

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Yes, I am proposing an amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Okay.

The first sentence of this paragraph says: “And that the letter requests them to provide a detailed response within 45 days of receiving it…”. If I understand correctly, you want to replace the number “45” with the number “30”. Is that right?

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

That's simple.

Now we have to debate the amendment.

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

However, I have not finished giving you an explanation for the amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Okay, please continue.

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

A response provided within 30 days of receiving the letter would allow us to do an even better job of finalizing our report.

To get back to what I was saying a little earlier, I would like to point out that several initiatives relating to green finance are happening right now. First, there is what the government proposed in October regarding the taxonomy and disclosure. There is also Bill S‑243 introduced by Senator Galvez. And then there are these recommendations, and there will be our report.

I would like there to be some harmonization of these initiatives. I am taking the opportunity this letter presents to ask the committee to reduce the time from 45 days to 30 days, so that our analysts can take the responses into consideration when we receive them, for the benefit of our recommendations.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Since no one else seems to want to speak to the amendment, we will put it to the vote.

[Shafqat Ali, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

Could you just repeat that? What are we voting on?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We're voting on a very simple change to the motion.

At the very end where it says, “45 days”, the amendment would change that to “30 days”.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)

Go ahead, Mr. Leslie, on the main motion.

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

I'm just going to respond to one of my colleague's comments.

I don't want to misquote you, Ms. Taylor Roy, but I believe you called farmers coming to protest changes to Bill C-234 a “tinpot dictatorship”. I'm wondering if you want to comment about some of the previous name-calling, particularly towards Canadian farmers.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

I have point of order, Mr. Chair.

It's important that we maintain decorum rather than tossing insults and accusations across the floor at one another. This he-said-she-said stuff isn't productive, and it's unbecoming of this committee.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

I would like to point out the lack of relevance of Mr. Leslie's comments. I am hoping that we can move on without jumping into a debate on this. I understand that Ms. Taylor Roy may very much want to respond. I would urge us not to get into Mr. Leslie's comments. It felt like a lack of decorum.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Let's try to stay away from impugning the motives of members.

Mr. Leslie, do you have more to say?

Go ahead, Ms. Taylor Roy.

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you, and I appreciate the admonition.

I appreciate that this is not something that should be discussed at this meeting. This is the very type of thing that Mr. Leslie has brought up and put in social media about me before and had his trolls then attack me—some threatening and some just misogynistic. I do feel I should respond, because that was a perfect example.

What I was speaking of at that meeting was the fact that Mr. Leslie referred to a demonstration that was forming around the flame and that was going to be marching on the Senate, where two women, who had already been harassed and threatened by Conservative members, were sitting.

It reminded me greatly of the language that was used by Mr. Leslie when he said they would be marching on the Senate. It reminded me of other phrases like that, which have been used by other people who had tried to disrupt the proper functioning of governments. I was concerned that the women senators would be further harassed and further threatened by this. That is why I refer to that. I, at no time, indicated that farmers did not have the right to protest.

As you very well know, I come from a farming family. In fact, a witness was here the other day, who was part of my family. I have worked on farms. I have a Dutch background. My grandfather was a farmer, and many of my cousins, uncles and aunts are farmers. I respect farmers, and I respect the right to protest. What I do not like is hearing that some gathering is being orchestrated by an ex-lobbyist to march on the Senate to threaten senators and tell them what to do. That is not the proper functioning of government, and that was what I was objecting to.

Mr. Leslie, given we've had this conversation now, I would greatly appreciate it if you clip this and post this as well so that your constituents and those trolls that follow me could know what I actually was saying.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Seeing as there are no other speakers on the list, we will go to a vote on this motion as amended.

(Motion as amended agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

I have Ms. Collins, who asked to be on the list.

I'm sorry, Mr. van Koeverden. Is there a point of order?

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

I just wanted to make sure that I was on the speaking list.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

You want to be on the speaking list. Do you want to be next, after Ms. Collins? Okay.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

We are going back to the original list.